[A_PLUS]

Awesome thread.

I don't get why people are making such a huge deal about the hand. Was it -CEV, yeah, probably. Was it likely to be a HUGE mistake? Nah.

It was interesting reading this thread develop. I think it caused such a stir, b/c Nath came across more than a little smug in the way it was presented, and is pretty clearly being at least somewhat results oriented.

But still, the only rational discussion I read was by Apefish, Woodguy, and Curtains.

I think people are really overestimating how well players adjust to someone like Nath, especially when a big jump in money is invloved. Anyone who plays a lot of SNGs knows that it is often correct to fold +CEV plays when Nath raises you, if you think someone else will risk their stack first.

I am as mathy a player as you will find, and I think Nath is most likely playing a very high ROI style. Saying that you always have to justify your moves with math is a little over the top. For a single hand, yeah, EV calcs are usually reasonable (although the assumptions may not be).
Outside of an individual hand, I haven't seen one theory relating to $EV in MTTs that I find all that 'correct'.

FWIW, I think most people drastically underestimate the value of taking a gambool for a big stack. Playing 10xBB poker before the final 30-40 players is a recipe for distaster long term if the rest of the table is deep. At some points, I think the variance is as important as the CEV of a play.

A lot of styles work in poker. Just b/c Nath's doesnt fit the typical 2+2 mold, doesn't mean he is just a luckbox. I think we could all probably learn something if we stop being so freaking petty (and Nath, you could turn down "I'm the new Doyle Brunson" routine).